The widespread public scepticism about Darwinism in most developed countries can be understood in terms of the counter-intuitive nature of the theory – we experience species as fixed and distinct in kind, not changing and only quantitatively different – and lack of education about the fundamental concepts

Darwinian explanations and socio-cultural processes: A synthesis. Daniel Nettle. Before 2008? https://doc4pdf.com/761219-darwinian-explanations-and-sociocultural-processes-a-synthesis-daniel-nettle.html

1. The problem

Darwin’s theory of evolution, in particular as it has emerged from the synthesis with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s and the clarification of the levels of selection issue in the 1960s, is the most important – ultimately, the only – deep-level theory in the life sciences. It provides a unification of the various disciplines of biology around a common set of explanatory principles which are demonstrably correct. As the great Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ (Dobzhansky 1973).  The various forms of intellectual critique of Darwinian theory in general - rather than particular local predictions derived from it - collapse under close scrutiny, and their persistence can be attributed to ideological and historical antipathies rather than any scientific substance (see Dennett 1995, Kitcher 2007, for some discussion, and Wilson 2007 for a readable introduction to modern Darwinism). The widespread public scepticism about Darwinism in most developed countries (Miller, Scot & Okamoto 2006) can likewise be understood in terms of the counter-intuitive nature of the theory – we experience species as fixed and distinct in kind, not changing and only quantitatively different – and lack of education about the fundamental concepts, rather than any flaws in the theoretical edifice. The social and human sciences provide an interesting contrast with the rest of the life sciences. For one thing, they lack a unifying theory, and exist as a more or less untranslatable set of local principles used within one discipline or one part of a discipline (Hermann-Pillath 1994, Wilson 1998, Barkow 2006). It is quite common for social science textbooks to present a number of meta-theoretical approaches, usually associated with particular influential individuals, without providing any criteria for adjudicating between them, leading to the impression that paradigmatic issues are a matter of taste rather than truth. Under these conditions, there is a continual splitting of sub-disciplines and problematizing of approaches, along with frequent statements that this or that field is in crisis, and the human sciences languish whilst the biological sciences, bold and theoretically self-confident, occupy ever more of the pages of influential journals.